We put ‘atheism’ in quotation marks because it tends to suffer the incoherence of that which it negates. None of the above, is about all we are left with, although negating god ideas remains a roughly ‘operationally relevant strategy applied to any given ‘god’ idea almost always a semantic mess of pottage.
The design argument is open to any number of useful naturalistic interpretations, but the idea tends to outstrip its moorings as we consider teleological issues, which again are possible concepts inside nature. The teleological arguments for the existence of god are really the same as design arguments. But here again there is no way to use this to prove anything about ‘god’.
I recommend a look at the eonic effect, which has an ingenious perception of the birth of Israelite monotheism as a ‘cargo’ cult of the eonic effect.
Look at Archaic Greece in the Axial interval: it shows a host of creative advances clustered in a short period, while in parallel we see the Israelite invention of monotheism. We can see that these are different instances of the same ‘eonic effect’. And the interpretation as ‘god’ in history fails, although the Israelites created a religion around the idea.
You see the hopeless confusion of the whole question of ‘god in history’.
Design thinkers who wish to see design as a theistic proof are stuck here: the eonic effect works by showing that a non-theistic interpretation shows design in history. The idea of an external god there doesn’t work.
The ID group has so terrified Darwinists that they have battened down the hatches around fake science to ‘disprove’ the issue of design. Richard Dawkins with chattering teeth has pronounced natural selection the answer to design. But the issue of design never works as a proof for the existence of god, for a simple reason that the god idea is incoherent. And figures like Kant long ago exposed such logic. The problem appears step one with the term ‘intelligent’. Can we predicate design as ‘intelligent’ to conclude the existence of god? Can we call ‘god’ intelligent. Think carefully the idea is a trap.Consider the absurdities latent in our terminologies with a slightly different example: If Gautama was enlightened isn’t an omnipotent ‘god’ enlightened? If buddhas then pass beyond existence, does god then pass beyond existence? The idea creates hopeless confusion and shows how only a primitive theism can ascribe personhood and consciousness to ‘god’. The same would be true of ‘intelligent’, no doubt. When we mix different and distinct terminologies the results are garbage in garbage…In fact we no language or concepts to even discuss the question beyond the idiot level of Christian theology. And design arguments at that level fail at the start. But design in nature is a perfectly good concept and can be considered without theological implications. It suddenly becomes, if not fully coherent, then at least a question for science to explore.